Mailing lists operate by modifying emails and this invalidates emails' checksum & signature – this is what I tried to explain in detail in my first email. There are "workarounds" (see Mailman DMARC mitigations link I shared), but no one-size-fits-all solution. See the INFRA tickets I shared for such rejected messages.
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 6:00 PM Dominik Psenner <dpsen...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would guess, if mail doesn't work it probably relates to spf, dkim or > dmark. > > Your description matches exactly this: Some service providers gradually > increase the rate of rejected mails that come from servers/domains refusing > to implement spf and dkim or even fail spf/dkim checks. This can be seen as > an incentive so that other service providers harden their infrastructure. > > At my dayjob we reject all messages that fail spf and dkim checks. Further > we actively monitor dmark activity to be informed if third parties are > attempting impersonation of company owned domains (aka identity spoofing). > > Unfortunately you do not get any messages as a "client", be it sender or > recipient. Mailserver administrators would see failures, but only if they > monitor the right metrics. And, yes, the world is a messy place. ;-) > > I had to learn some of this craft. Even if I did not master all aspects, I > could try my best and do an analysis of some sample message headers? Do not > hesitate to send me sample messages that made it into your inbox, please as > attachments so that message headers are preserved. > > On Tue, 15 Oct 2024, 15:25 Ralph Goers, <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > > > Volkan has taken to pinging me in Slack every time he sends a message to > > this list because at least 25% of the time I wasn’t getting his emails. > No > > one knows why. I checked with my mail provider and have looked > everywhere I > > have access to. > > > > Lately I have been getting all of his emails. Again, I don’t know why. > > Also, it seemed to only be emails from him. But his emails always made it > > to the list. > > > > I would like email more if it could automatically filter. As it stands I > > have something like 60 folders under the email address where I receive > > these. That means I have at least 60 filters set up to route my mail into > > them. But even that isn’t perfect. GitHub generates so much noise that it > > is impossible to keep up with all the notifications it sends me. That is > > one of the major reasons I am not in love with the idea of using > > discussions. > > > > Ralph > > > > > On Oct 15, 2024, at 4:54 AM, Dominik Psenner <dpsen...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > What concerns me is that email appears to be unreliable where it > > shouldn't. > > > Either it works always or it doesn't at all. I experience it to be 100% > > > reliable. > > > > > > Short downtimes are OK and to be expected while systems are patched. > But > > > then email are delivered later. The technology is much like a postman > who > > > comes back later if he finds the front gate closed. The postman should > > not > > > burn the letter in front of the gate. > > > > > > On Mon, 14 Oct 2024, 22:56 Matt Sicker, <m...@musigma.org> wrote: > > > > > >> That’s because a lot of other things are also using Slack. On the > other > > >> hand, I had to disable notifications from Slack due to people misusing > > it > > >> to DM me instead of sending emails to the Secretary properly > (unrelated > > to > > >> Log4j). > > >> > > >>> On Oct 14, 2024, at 15:53, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I can’t say I agree with that. It didn’t take me very long to get > used > > >> to using Slack. > > >>> > > >>> Ralph > > >>> > > >>>> On Oct 14, 2024, at 1:47 PM, Matt Sicker <m...@musigma.org> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> There’s a very, very small chance I’ll ever remember to visit a > > website > > >> to find out about what are essentially emails that could have been > sent > > to > > >> me. I have a regular habit of reading email nearly every day, but > > >> developing new habits is unlikely to stick. > > >>>> > > >>>>> On Oct 14, 2024, at 14:50, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com > > > > >> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Maybe we just need to start contributing to PonyMail to improve the > > UI > > >> to eliminate actually needing the email delivered to our accounts. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I am only 1/4 serious about this. There has to be a better > solution. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Ralph > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On Oct 14, 2024, at 10:25 AM, Matt Sicker <m...@musigma.org> > wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I didn’t get the original email in this thread once again, so I > > think > > >> I’d support trying somewhere else to host discussions. Besides > archiving > > >> those messages into a mailing list, it would be great if the solution > > >> provided allowed for email interactivity (e.g., you can reply to the > > >> notification of a message and it’s added to the thread appropriately; > > this > > >> is how GitHub notification emails typically work). > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2024, at 05:40, Christian Grobmeier < > > grobme...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Hi > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I am generally open to such experiments. I would start with the > > >> easiest parts, such as users@, and see where it goes. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I would advise against mirroring it to users@ behind the scenes, > > as > > >> it may cause privacy problems (we need user consensus to mirror it). > > When a > > >> user uses GitHub, they know what to expect. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> As for Discourse, many use that now, but I find it very > > overwhelming > > >> and stressful. I prefer the clean Github discussions approach. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I haven't checked against ASF policies but feel positive about > this > > >> move for the arguments you have given > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Kind regards > > >>>>>>> Christian > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2024, at 10:58, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > > >>>>>>>> *Abstract:* Modern email system security measures make it > > >> practically > > >>>>>>>> impossible for mailing lists to work – many subscribers don't > get > > >> all > > >>>>>>>> emails. This not only hinders communication, but blocks an > > inclusive > > >>>>>>>> one. *Shall > > >>>>>>>> we, as Logging Services, experiment with alternatives?* > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> *Motivation #1: mailing lists technically don't work* > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Several widely-used email providers (GMail, Yahoo, iCloud, etc.) > > >> have in > > >>>>>>>> the last couple of years enabled new measures (DMARC, SPF, DKIM, > > >> etc.) to > > >>>>>>>> verify the authenticity of emails. In short, these measures > enrich > > >> email > > >>>>>>>> content with checksums and signatures capturing its > authenticity. > > >> When a > > >>>>>>>> mailing list system (e.g., ezmlm, mailman) receives such an > email, > > >> it > > >>>>>>>> performs several changes on its content (adds information about > > the > > >> mailing > > >>>>>>>> list, etc.), and delivers it to all subscribers. When the mail > > >> server of a > > >>>>>>>> subscriber receives such tampered mail, and if that mail server > > >> happens to > > >>>>>>>> have earlier shared authenticity checks enabled, it discards the > > >> email, or > > >>>>>>>> at best, marks it as spam. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Ralph, Matt, Piotr stated many times that they don't receive all > > >> emails. > > >>>>>>>> Ralph actually stated many ASF mailing list emails end up in his > > >> spam > > >>>>>>>> box > > >>>>>>>> < > > >> > > > https://the-asf.slack.com/archives/CBX4TSBQ8/p1728032221080189?thread_ts=1727958807.348019&cid=CBX4TSBQ8 > > >>> . > > >>>>>>>> Recently we witnessed even Brian Proffitt (VP, Marketing & > > >> Publicity) > > >>>>>>>> suffer > > >>>>>>>> from the same problem > > >>>>>>>> < > https://lists.apache.org/thread/yfmrpjslcbo5jmsqqpvtok1o6lht11rb > > >. > > >> > > >>>>>>>> INFRA > > >>>>>>>> is crawling with related tickets: INFRA-24574 > > >>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24574>, > INFRA-24790 > > >>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24790>, > INFRA-24845 > > >>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24845>, > INFRA-24850 > > >>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24850>, > INFRA-24872 > > >>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24872>, > INFRA-25947 > > >>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-25947>, > INFRA-26171 > > >>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-26171> – there are > > >> dozens > > >>>>>>>> more. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> This technical difficulty is not only known to us. AFAIK, this > is > > >> one of > > >>>>>>>> the main reasons PSF (Python Software Foundation) decided to > > switch > > >> from > > >>>>>>>> mailing lists to Discourse. Mailman documents several DMARC > > >> mitigations > > >>>>>>>> < > > >> > > > https://docs.mailman3.org/projects/mailman/en/latest/src/mailman/handlers/docs/dmarc-mitigations.html > > >>> , > > >>>>>>>> but I think these are workarounds/hacks rather than > > well-established > > >>>>>>>> solutions. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> *Motivation #2: ezmlm is dead* > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> ezmlm, the mailing list software ASF uses, is dead – it is > neither > > >>>>>>>> developed, nor maintained anymore. (Last official release was in > > >> 1997, > > >>>>>>>> there > > >>>>>>>> is the `ezmlm-idx` add-on, which later on became a successor > > >>>>>>>> < > > >> > > > https://untroubled.org/ezmlm/faq/What-is-the-difference-between-ezmlm-and-ezmlm_002didx_003f.html > > >>> , > > >>>>>>>> which last produced a release in 2014, and so on. Long, dead > > >> story.) > > >>>>>>>> INFRA > > >>>>>>>> maintains a very big, sophisticated set of Perl rules for > running > > >> ASF > > >>>>>>>> ezmlm > > >>>>>>>> instances. If you look closely at the INFRA tickets I cited > above, > > >> some > > >>>>>>>> suggest INFRA to fork ezmlm and fix some long standing bugs, > etc. > > >> We can > > >>>>>>>> discuss the possibility of migrating from ezmlm to mailman (yet > > >> another > > >>>>>>>> mailing list software, but one that is still maintained), > whether > > >> such a > > >>>>>>>> migration should be practiced ASF-wide or only for Logging > > >> Services, > > >>>>>>>> etc. > > >>>>>>>> But eventually, we will still be using a mailing list, and as I > > >> tried to > > >>>>>>>> explain above, IMO, they just don't work good. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> *Proposal #1: Experimenting with GitHub Discussions* > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> GitHub is our development bread and butter. We use its tickets, > > PRs, > > >>>>>>>> reviews, discussions, CI, security & code quality checks, etc. > It > > >> works > > >>>>>>>> perfectly and components are integrated well, i.e., you can link > > >> issues, > > >>>>>>>> comments, PRs, CI runs, etc. Users like it too – we all > witnessed > > >> the > > >>>>>>>> sudden increase in user interactions after migrating to GitHub > > >> Issues > > >>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>> Discussions. We can configure sections & categories in > Discussions > > >>>>>>>> < > > >> > > > https://docs.github.com/en/discussions/managing-discussions-for-your-community/managing-categories-for-discussions > > >>> > > >>>>>>>> to make it serve as our main communication medium. It also > > provides > > >> mail > > >>>>>>>> notifications and the possibility to respond to them for those > who > > >> still > > >>>>>>>> prefer their email client over a browser. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> In short, we can quickly configure Discussions, update our > support > > >> policy > > >>>>>>>> page, and start experimenting with it. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> One can raise the argument that what if Discussions disappear? > We > > >> can > > >>>>>>>> mirror communication there to a mailing list to be on the safe > > >> side. Yet, > > >>>>>>>> we need to evaluate the necessity of this. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> *Proposal #2: Experimenting with Discourse* > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> We can get a VM from INFRA and manage our Discourse instance. > > >> Though, > > >>>>>>>> AFAIC, this will result in a "GitHub Discussions"-like setup > with > > >> all the > > >>>>>>>> integration goodies missing and added server maintenance burden. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> *F.A.Q.* > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> *What if GitHub Discussions disappear?* > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> In such a case, I presume they will allow us to download the > > >> existing > > >>>>>>>> archives. In the worst case, we can decide to mirror the > > >> communication > > >>>>>>>> there to a mailing list. Yet, we need to evaluate the necessity > of > > >> this. In > > >>>>>>>> particular, how big of a problem is this at the experimentation > > >> stage? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> *How will private communication work with GitHub Discussions?* > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> We can create private repositories for internal/private > > >> communication. > > >>>>>>>> For > > >>>>>>>> users/researchers wanting to submit & discuss security issues, > > they > > >> can > > >>>>>>>> get > > >>>>>>>> in touch with us (either via email to `security@logging` or > some > > >> other > > >>>>>>>> ASF/INFRA mailing list), we can grant them permissions to > > >> collaborate > > >>>>>>>> privately on a repository security advisory > > >>>>>>>> < > > >> > > > https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/security-advisories/working-with-repository-security-advisories/about-repository-security-advisories > > >>> > > >>>>>>>> . > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> *Don't the ASF legals require mailing lists?* > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I am aware that several ASF policies require mailing list > > >> communication, > > >>>>>>>> e.g., for voting and such. I first want to establish a consensus > > >> among us, > > >>>>>>>> and then pitch to the board for exemption as a pilot. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> *Shouldn't this proposal be practiced ASF-wide?* > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> This will be a very (very very very, actually!) daunting route > to > > >> pursue. > > >>>>>>>> I'd rather start small, solve our problem first (if we can), and > > >> then think > > >>>>>>>> about widening the scope. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
